From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"Torvalds, Linus" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:28:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8VQ612fm0Wi4j4w@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6dda4b2-1124-7189-ecd8-9cf85c1b790d@physik.fu-berlin.de>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 10:41:14AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 1/15/23 01:27, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > More useful perhaps is to look at https://popcon.debian.org/
> >
> > There are three machines reporting popcon results. It's dead.
>
> It's an opt-in mechanism that reports 190,000 machines running Debian
> on x86_64. Do you think that there are only 190,000 servers world-wide
> running Debian?
No. I think there are so few ia64 machines still in operation that the
effort required to continue to support them is now too high relative
to the benefits. We've dropped support for hardware that still exists
before, and we'll do it again. The only question is when.
I still have two ia64 machines in my basement. I've turned one of them
on once since 2009. And that was because I had a bug I needed to track
down and fix (2018, commits 4b664e739f77 and 2879b65f9de8).
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-16 13:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAGudoHHx0Nqg6DE70zAVA75eV-HXfWyhVMWZ-aSeOofkA_=WdA@mail.gmail.com>
2023-01-13 0:13 ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:30 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 0:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 7:55 ` ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax) Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 16:17 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:03 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 0:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16 9:42 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:41 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2023-01-16 9:40 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:37 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:32 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 10:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 1:12 ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 4:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 9:46 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13 3:20 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 5:36 ` Nicholas Piggin
[not found] ` <1966767.1673878095@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
2023-01-16 15:09 ` Memory transaction instructions Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18 9:05 ` David Howells
2023-01-19 1:41 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 10:23 ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 18:44 ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y8VQ612fm0Wi4j4w@casper.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
--cc=jan.glauber@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).